Speech and swallowing function following microsurgical reconstruction of palatal defects in a series of six pediatric patients

What Free Flaps Are Surgeons Using for Palatal Fistula Repair in Patients with Cleft Palate? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Recalcitrant palatal fistulas in patients with cleft palate history sometimes require free flap reconstruction. This study reviews the literature on described flaps and outcomes.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

SETTING

All study designs were included. Non-English articles were excluded.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a history of cleft palate who underwent free flap reconstruction for a oronasal fistula.

INTERVENTIONS

Free tissue transfer for a palatal fistula repair.

MAIN OUTCOMEE MEASURES

Information regarding defect and flap characteristics were reviewed. Surgical outcomes such as flap loss rates, rates of recurrent fistula formation, and speech outcomes were also obtained.

RESULTS

Our search returned 894 articles, of which 23 were included. All studies were retrospective case series and reports. A total of 65 patients were described with an average age of 19.3 (range 3-55) years and a median fistula size of 8.00 cm2 (range 2.54 cm2 - 24 cm2). The most common flap was the radial forearm flap (n = 37). Nine patients (13.8%) had recurrent fistula formation with surgical revision successful in all cases in which the patient returned to the operating room. There were two partial flap losses and no total flap losses. Speech outcomes showed improvement in 27 patients across 10 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Palatal fistula repair with free tissue transfer is safe with an acceptable risk profile and low flap loss rate. Early recurrence due to partial flap necrosis and dehiscence are successfully managed with flap readvancement.

One stage reconstruction of mid-face fistulous defects after maxillary sinus carcinoma resection with chimeric perforator free flaps

BACKGROUND

The reconstruction of large fistulous defects following the radical ablation of maxillary sinus carcinoma remains challenging. The procedure requires not only the coverage of both intra-nasal lining and cheek skin but also sufficient obliteration of dead space between the two surfaces. In this report, we present our experience on the reconstruction of through-and-through defects in the mid-face with poly-foliated chimeric perforator flaps.

METHODS

Nine patients (five males and four females) who received a two-skin paddled and one muscle segment chimeric perforator flap reconstruction after maxillary sinus carcinoma ablation between March 2015 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed in authors' hospital. The mean age of the patients was 59.11. Six patients were diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma, two as adenoid cystic carcinoma, and one as adenocarcinoma. Brown class IIIa defects were found in eight patients, and one patient had a Brown class IVa defect. The mean size of intra-nasal defect was 5.67 × 4.06 cm² , and the mean size of facial skin defect was 8.94 × 6.56 cm² . ALT flaps were used in five patients, LD flaps in four patients. The minor skin paddle was firstly inset to the mucosal defect site as the lining. Then, the muscle segment was inset to eliminate the dead cavity. Finally, the major skin paddle was inset to recover the cutaneous defect.

RESULTS

In ALT group, the mean size of the minor skin paddle was 5.7 × 4.7 cm² , and the mean size of the major skin paddle was 8.7 × 6.6 cm² . In LD group, the mean size of the minor skin paddle was 6.88 × 4.38 cm² , and the mean size of the major skin paddle was 11 × 7.75 cm² .All donor sites were closed primarily. All flaps survived and no partial flap loss was encountered. The mean follow-up time was 14.67 months, and there were no major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of poly-foliated chimeric perforator free flaps can provide functional and aesthetic coverage for extensive through-and-through mid-face defects without significant donor-site morbidities.